Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections
383 U.S. 663 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee a condition for the right to vote in state elections.
Facts:
- The Virginia Constitution directed the General Assembly to levy an annual poll tax not exceeding $1.50 on every resident aged 21 and over.
- Payment of all state poll taxes for the three preceding years was a mandatory precondition for a resident to register to vote in state elections.
- The poll tax had to be paid at least six months prior to the election in which the voter sought to participate.
- Annie E. Harper and other Virginia residents were unable to register to vote in Virginia because they could not or would not pay the required poll tax.
Procedural Posture:
- Virginia residents filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The suits sought a declaration that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court was convened to hear the cases.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that it was bound by the Supreme Court's prior decision in Breedlove v. Suttles.
- The residents (as appellants) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's poll tax requirement for voting in state elections violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. A state law that conditions the right to vote on the payment of a tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that once a state grants the franchise to the electorate, it may not draw lines that are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause. The right to vote is a fundamental right, preservative of all other rights, and any alleged infringement must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized. The Court held that wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Therefore, introducing wealth or the payment of a fee as a voter qualification is a capricious and irrelevant factor that creates an invidious discrimination, which is unconstitutional. This decision explicitly overruled the Court's prior holding in Breedlove v. Suttles.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
No. The Virginia poll tax requirement does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The dissent argued that the Court should adhere to its precedent in Breedlove v. Suttles, which upheld a similar tax. Justice Black contended that the majority was not interpreting the original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause but was instead giving it a new meaning based on the Court's own view of good governmental policy. He argued that the poll tax is not irrational, as a state could reasonably believe it helps collect revenue and that taxpayers are more invested voters. The proper method for abolishing the poll tax, in his view, is through the constitutional amendment process or congressional legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, not through judicial reinterpretation.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. The Virginia poll tax does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it survives the rational basis test. The dissent argued that the proper standard for equal protection analysis is whether a classification is founded on a rational and permissible state policy. Property and poll tax qualifications have a long history in the United States and can be rationally justified on grounds that they promote civic responsibility and ensure that voters have a stake in the community's affairs. The majority, by labeling these traditional qualifications as 'capricious' and 'irrelevant,' was abandoning established legal standards in favor of its own subjective, egalitarian political theory, which is an improper role for the judiciary.
Analysis:
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections is a landmark decision that established voting as a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. By invalidating wealth-based voter qualifications, the Court significantly expanded voter protection and limited the states' power to regulate the franchise. This decision effectively eliminated one of the last remaining tools of disenfranchisement that disproportionately affected poor and minority citizens. The case set a powerful precedent that any law burdening the right to vote must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, a standard that continues to shape modern voting rights litigation.
